November 2009

November 30, 2009

When I was in college, I read a book that changed my life. It was Susan Brownmiller's tome, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape,
which explained rape as an act of power instead of just lust. What I
found particularly chilling was the chapter on war -- how rape is used
to terrorize a population and destroy the enemy's spirit.

While
edifying, the book magnified the vulnerability I already felt as a
female. Fear of rape became a constant dread, and I sought a solution
that would help shield me from danger.

The
answer: seek safe harbor within the Democratic Party. I even became an
activist for feminist causes, including violence against women.
Liberalism would protect me from the big, bad conservatives who wished
me harm.

Like
for most feminists, it was a no-brainer for me to become a Democrat.
Liberal men, not conservatives, were the ones devoted to women's
issues. They marched at my side in support of abortion rights. They
were enthusiastic about women succeeding in the workplace.

As
time went on, I had many experiences that should have made me rethink
my certainty. But I remained nestled in cognitive dissonance -- therapy
jargon for not wanting to see what I didn't want to see.

Another
red flag: while liberal men did indeed hold up those picket signs, they
didn't do anything else to protect me. In fact, their social programs
enabled bad behavior and bred chaos in urban America. And when I was
accosted by thugs, those leftist men were missing in action.

What
else should have tipped me off? Perhaps the fact that so many men in
ultra-left Berkeley are sleazebags. Rarely a week goes by that I don't
hear stories from my young female clients about middle-aged men preying
on them. With the rationale of moral relativism, these creeps feel they
can do anything they please.

What
finally woke me up were the utterances of "bitch," "witch," and
"monster" toward Hillary Clinton and her supporters early last year. I
was shocked into reality: the trash-talk wasn't coming from
conservatives, but from male and female liberals.

I
finally beheld what my eyes had refused to see: that leftists are Mr.
and Ms. Misogyny. Neither the males nor the females care a whit about
women.

Women
are continually sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. If
under radical Islam women are enshrouded and stoned and beheaded, so be
it.

My
other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion
rights not because they cherished women's reproductive freedom, but to
keep women available for free and easy sex.

And the eagerness for women to make good money? If women work hard, leftist men don't have to.

Then
along came Sarah, and the attacks became particularly heinous. And I
realized something even more chilling about the Left. Leftists not only
sacrifice and disrespect women, but it's far worse: many are perpetuators.

The
Left's behavior towards Palin is not politics as usual. By their
laser-focus on her body and her sexuality, leftists are defiling her.

They are wilding her. And they do this with the full knowledge and complicity of the White House. MORE>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The European Union needs the joint all-European army. The subject
surfaced in the beginning of the 1990s, when European countries
realized the scale of global changes after the fall of the iron curtain.

The US administration is very negative about the
idea. The question about the all-European army was pushed into the
background after the Balkan war, when European armies were acting
within the framework of KFOR and NATO. The USA believed that one needed
to strengthen NATO, and everyone agreed. France was trying to show
resistance to it, but after the nation became a full-fledged member of
NATO on Sarkozy’s initiative, the French administration forgot about
the creation of the all-European army too.

Things changed in 2009. The European Parliament
established the Rapid Deployment Force of the European Union in 2009.
Last week, officials of the Italian administration put forward a
suggestion to look into the matter of the European Army again. Italy’s
Foreign Minister Franco Frattini stated that Europe needed the army to
deepen the European integration, optimize the spending on military
operation in NATO and repulse possible threats.

It is worthy of note that every European country,
which participates in the military operation in Afghanistan, has to
maintain its contingent with arms and military hardware, although there
can be bilateral agreements reached at this point. Europe could have a
more rational approach to the issue once the continent has the joint
army. For example, one country would supply tanks, another one –
fighter jets, another one – communication systems, etc.

The European Union has a more important reason for
creating the army. Europe wants to increase its weight in the world and
turn into a real center of influence. Europe has not been happy with
its role of America’s minor partner, not to mention its position of a
subordinate member in NATO.

European leaders are also concerned about the global
political revival of Asia and Africa. However, the biggest risk factor
appeared with the creation of the union between the United States and
China. Europe decided to create its Rapid Deployment Force soon after
the presentation of the G2 project. Furthermore, the idea to create the
joint EU Army was voiced against the background of the discussion of
Obama’s visit to China.

If the USA and China unite into the G2, they will
create the Pacific axis, and the Atlantic Alliance will be forgotten.
The interests of America’s foreign policy has taken a different turn –
to the East, which means that Europe must take care of its security.

"If we do not find a common foreign policy, there is
the risk that Europe will become irrelevant. We will be bypassed by the
G2 of America and China,” Mr. Frattini said.

November 27, 2009

The founder of Times Books -- publisher of President Barack Obama's autobiography Dreams From My Father -- Thomas
Lipscomb recently dropped a huge bomb on the Obama White House. Now a
senior fellow at the well-regarded Annenberg Center, Lipscomb contends
that Obama's story was actually ghostwritten by former terrorist and
cop-killer William Ayers.

During the presidential campaign if asked how close he was with
the former bomb-maker for Weathermen, Obama would claim that
Bill Ayers was merely "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not
somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis."

But according to Lipscomb's Accuracy in Media report: "Obama had to
give up on a $150,000 Simon & Schuster contract because he couldn't
complete the manuscript, his sources were telling him Obama finally had
to bring in a ghostwriter to put together his highly praised Dreams From My Father for Times Books. He had a million pieces of tape, pictures, memos, notes, and no manuscript."

Unfortunately for Obama, he was caught at a July 10, 2008, meeting in
Fairfax, Virginia proudly saying the following: "I've written two
books. I actually wrote them myself." MORE>>>>>>>>>>>>

Science depends on good quality of data. It also relies on
replication and sharing data. But the last couple of days have
uncovered some shocking revelations. Computer hackers have obtained 160
megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University
of East Anglia in England. These e-mails,
which have now been confirmed as real, involved many researchers across
the globe with ideologically similar advocates around the world. They
were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did
not support global warming claims. The academics here also worked
closely with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and Professor Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University,
who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come
under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Professor Jones talks to
Professor Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each
series...to hide the decline [in temperature]." Professor Mann admitted
that this was the exchange that he had and explained to the New York Times
that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to
solve a problem, 'and not something secret.'" While the New York Times
apparently buys this explanation, it is hard to see the explanation for
"to hide the decline."

And there is a lot more. In another exchange, Professor Jones tells
Professor Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information
Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to
anyone" and "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide
behind." Professor Jones further urges Professor Mann to join him in
deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change’s controversial assessment report: "Can you delete any e-mails
you may have had with Keith re: [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"
In another e-mail, Professor Jones told Professor Mann and Professor
Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona and Raymond S. "Ray"
Bradley at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting
hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature
data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of
Information Act!"

Note from Bob Barney: Jesus DID visit Britain, as his uncle, Joseph of Arimathea(whose grave Jesus was buried in) was a tin miner, who owned mines it Britain. The first Christian Church outside of Palestine was actually located in Glastonbury England! Mary, Jesus' mother moved there after the death of Christ and probably died in Britain. This is all a part of the history of lost Israel, YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN TOLD!

The documentary, And Did Those Feet, explores the story behind the legend
which survives in the hymn, for which William Blake wrote the words.

The legend claims Jesus visited several places in the West Country, such as
the Roseland peninsula and Glastonbury, with his uncle, Joseph of
Arimathaea.

In the film, the Scottish researcher Dr Strachan said it is plausible Jesus
may have visited Britain to further his learning.

Ted Harrison, the film's director and producer, said: ''There is a very much
closer connection between early Christianity and the classical Greek and
Roman world than previously thought.

''If somebody was wanting to learn about the spirituality and thinking not
just of the Jews but also the classical and Greek world he would have to
come to Britain, which was the centre of learning at the time.

''But there is nothing specific by way of archaeological finds; Jesus's shoe
has not turned up.''

Dr Strachan, a Church of Scotland minister who lives in Edinburgh, lectures on
the history of architecture at Edinburgh University.

The film also explores how St Augustine heard the legend of Jesus's visit when
he came to England around 597AD.

He heard that Jesus built a chapel in Glastonbury and wrote to the Pope to
tell him about it.

Mr Harrison said: ''The concrete evidence is this reference by St Augustine
that at Glastonbury there was a small building or church that was put up by
Jesus, built by the hand of the Lord himself.

''But the medieval Glastonbury Abbey has been built on top of it.''

The documentary also claims that Britain was at the forefront of learning and
scholarship in the first century AD, particularly in mathematics.

It looks at the maths involved in structures such as Stonehenge and the
standing stones in Calanish on the Isle of Lewis, and relates it to
mathematics in the Bible, medieval cathedrals and the modern-day credit
card.

The broadcast networks still haven’t uttered a single word about the revelations late last week of e-mails showing scientists on the left-wing side of the global warming debate plotting to hide data and silence those on the other side
in an effort prop up the notion of a “consensus” on the issue. But when
the liberal side of the debate charged that their opponents were
involved in a “conspiracy” to tilt the debate in their favor, those
same networks eagerly jumped on the story and castigated the evil
“deniers.”

In 2007, as Brent Baker chronicled at the time in the MRC's CyberAlert, the broadcast network evening newscasts jumped to hype
a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing meant to
publicize a report from two far-left groups about how the Bush
administration supposedly suppressed science about the dire threat of
global warming — as if that view wasn’t getting plenty of play in the
mainstream media.

As we rapidly approach December 18th, the day when ACORN is again eligible to receive federal funds, we still have yet to see a meaningful investigation of ACORN.

Last week, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice
released a “Review of Department of Justice Grants to the Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inc. (ACORN) and its
Affiliated Organizations.” Unsurprisingly this report “did not find
any DOJ direct grants to ACORN.” The report did however reveal
approximately $200,000 in sub-grants to ACORN affiliates. This number
pales in comparison to the amount of federal money ACORN and its
affiliates have received from other agencies.

ACORN and its affiliates have received over $54 million in federal
grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
These are the grants that the government should be investigating. How
did ACORN spend these federal tax dollars? Were they used for their
designated purposes? Does ACORN owe the federal government a refund?

EVEN for a religion started by a science fiction writer, the
allegations levelled against the Church of Scientology in federal
parliament this week sound stranger than fiction.

Blackmail, cover-ups of child abuse, labour camps, embezzlement and
coerced abortions are spelled out among the 53 pages of allegations by
seven former Scientologists - some of whom had climbed high in the
church hierarchy - tabled in the Senate.

In what the church has
decried as "an outrageous abuse of parliamentary privilege",
independent senator Nick Xenophon is demanding a Senate inquiry into
what he described in parliament as a "criminal organisation that hides
behind its religious beliefs".

"In my view, this is a two-faced organisation," he told the Senate on Tuesday night.

"There
is the public face of the organisation founded in 1953 by the late
science fiction writer L.Ron Hubbard, which claims to offer guidance
and support to its followers, and there is the private face of the
organisation, which abuses its followers, viciously targets its critics
and seems largely driven by paranoia." MORE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A union leader in Pennsylvania has resigned after being criticized
for threatening legal action over an aspiring Eagle Scout’s volunteer
project.

Nick Balzano, president of the Service Employees International
Union’s Allentown chapter, submitted an unexpected resignation letter
Thursday, along with a few other employees, SEIU spokesman Matt Nerzig
told Foxnews.com.

The resignations came one day after FoxNews.com reported that
Balzano had come under fire for saying earlier in the month that the
SEIU might file a grievance against the city of Allentown for allowing
17-year-old Kevin Anderson to voluntarily clear a walking trail in a
local park, instead of paying union members to do the work.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, has an article in today’s Wall Street Journal, in which he predicts — correctly in my opinion — that we are headed for a fiscal iceberg.

Our fiscal situation has deteriorated rapidly in just
the past few years. The federal government ran a 2009 deficit of $1.4
trillion — the highest since World War II — as spending reached nearly
25% of GDP and total revenues fell below 15% of GDP. Shortfalls like
these have not been seen in more than 50 years.

Going forward, there is no relief in sight, as spending far outpaces
revenues and the federal budget is projected to be in enormous deficit
every year. Our national debt is projected to stand at $17.1 trillion
10 years from now, or over $50,000 for every American. By 2019,
according to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) analysis of the
president’s budget, the deficit will still be roughly $1 trillion, even
though the economic situation will have improved and revenues will be
above historical norms.

November 23, 2009

Vegetarians aren't the only ones who
should be concerned; there's soy in just about everything you eat these
days -- including hamburgers, mac 'n cheese and salad dressing.

These
days, you can get soy versions of just about any meat -- from hot dogs
to buffalo wings. If you're lactose-intolerant you can still enjoy soy
ice-cream and soy milk on your cereal. If you're out for a hike and
need a quick boost of energy, you can nibble on soy candy bars.

Soy is a lucrative industry. According to Soyfoods Association of North America,
from 1992 to 2008, sales of soy foods have increased from $300 million
to $4 billion. From sales numbers to medical endorsements, it would
seem that soy has reached a kind of miracle food status.

In 2000
the American Heart Association gave soy the thumbs up and the FDA
proclaimed: "Diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol that include 25
grams of soy protein a day may reduce the risk of heart disease." Over
the course of the last decade medical professionals have touted its benefits in fighting not just cardiovascular disease, but cancers, osteoporosis and diabetes.

But
soy's glory days may be coming to an end. New research is questioning
its health benefits and even pointing out some potential risks.
Although definitive evidence may be many years down the road, the
American Heart Association has quietly withdrawn its support. And some groups
are waging an all-out war, warning that soy can lead to certain kinds
of cancers, lowered testosterone levels, and early-onset puberty in
girls.

Most of the soy eaten today is also genetically modified,
which may pose another set of health risks. The environmental
implications of soy production, including massive deforestation,
increased use of pesticides and threats to water and soil, are
providing more fodder for soy's detractors.

All of this has many
people wondering if they should even be eating it at all. And you are
most likely eating it. Even if you're not a vegetarian or an avid tofu
fan, there is a good chance you're still eating soy. Raj Patel, author
of Stuffed and Starved,
explains that soy is now an ingredient in three-quarters of processed
food on the market and just about everything you'd find in a fast food
restaurant. It's used as filler in hamburgers, as vegetable oil and an
emulsifier. It's in salad dressing, macaroni and cheese, and chicken
nuggets.

"Even if you read every label and avoid cardboard
boxes, you are likely to find soy in your supplements and vitamins
(look out for vitamin E derived from soy oil), in foods such as canned
tuna, soups, sauces, breads, meats (injected under poultry skin), and
chocolate, and in pet food and body-care products," wrote Mary Vance
for Terrain Magazine.
"It hides in tofu dogs under aliases such as textured vegetable
protein, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and lecithin--which is
troubling, since the processing required to hydrolyze soy protein into
vegetable protein produces excitotoxins such as glutamate (think MSG)
and aspartate (a component of aspartame), which cause brain-cell death." MORE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

#1- It demonstrates the need to turn up the pressure on those
senators who publicly state they're on the fence. The argument that
you're "going to vote to start debate on a bill but you still may not
vote for it in the end because you're not happy with it" is a cop-out -
plain and simple.

You hold a much more considerable position of power when you prevent
the bill from even being brought to the floor than you do when you
allow it to be considered. If you claim to be unhappy with provisions
in the bill, then you should work with leadership behind the scenes to
change the bill so you can support it in good conscience.

Some senators have made headlines stating how they're going to take
a bold stand by bucking the party if the party delivers something they
can't agree with. Tonight demonstrates how easily those type of people
cave in. Make no mistake, when you're contacting your senator, if they
voted for cloture, their vote should be treated as a vote in support of
this plan. Don't let them give you a bunch of bull in response about
how they will block the final vote if they don't agree with it; I'm
pretty sure their excuse next time will be, "Well, I'll just try to
make sure these problems are fixed in committee, but this bill is too
important to be stopped here." Call them on it.

To reiterate, if they want to truly take a bold stand, then they
will follow through on all their threats and oppose this bill until
what they disagree with is fixed. The public debate has already
started. We've been debating this bill for the last week. No matter
what's in the bill, you should have the courage to vote to bring it to
the floor only if you actually believe in the legislation's contents.

But that requires taking a truly principled stand. That requires courage.

Help C4L turn up the attention on these swing votes by donating to our television ad campaign.
We're already running ads in Nebraska urging Senator Ben Nelson's
constituents to call him, and we want to expand to Arkansas and beyond.

#2 - Don't let this bother you too much while enjoying time with
your family this week. As previously mentioned, this is the beginning
of a long, long process in the Senate. There's still a lot of time to
fight, and I have a feeling that this vote tonight will only build
frustrations.

Another vote will have to be taken to even end debate and move for a
final vote. Senators are coming home for the holidays soon. I think we
should be there to deliver some Season's Greetings.

Last week it was revealed that 54 oil
tankers are anchored off the coast of Britain, refusing to unload their
fuel until prices have risen.

But
that is not the only scandal in the shipping world. Today award-winning
science writer Fred Pearce – environmental consultant to New Scientist
and author of Confessions Of An Eco Sinner – reveals that the
super-ships that keep the West in everything from Christmas gifts to
computers pump out killer chemicals linked to thousands of deaths
because of the filthy fuel they use.

It looks foul, and leaves a brown haze
across ports and shipping lanes. But what hasn’t been clear until now
is that it is also a major killer, probably causing thousands of deaths
in Britain alone.

As ships get bigger, the pollution is
getting worse. The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of
the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur
pollution as all the world’s cars.

In short the answer is yes! She just needs to play "politics" with the money. The $300 million will be "earmarked" most likely to liberal causes that are usually non-profits, or companies that support Democratic candidates. They will funnel a large part back into her campaign chest, as she needs all the money she can raise for her next election WHICH SHE MAY LOSE! If she loses, she is still taken care of! Here's How:

Ex-lawmakers working as lobbyists or advisers
to those seeking to influence federal policy are pumping leftover
campaign funds into the accounts of their former congressional
colleagues — including colleagues who oversee the industries the
ex-lawmakers now represent, a USA TODAY review of campaign-finance
records shows.

The donations are legal. Federal law allows
former members of Congress to keep campaign accounts active and dole
out the money to candidates, political parties and charities.

However, critics of the practice, such as
Meredith McGehee of the non-profit Campaign Legal Center, call the
accounts "political slush funds," that are tapped to curry favor with
lawmakers.

"Being able to give money is a huge advantage in
establishing yourself as a lobbyist," McGehee said. "Money buys you
face time. But this isn't money that's coming from their pockets. This
is money other people have given them that they are using to set up
their next careers."

Former representative Jim McCrery,
who left Congress earlier this year and advises clients on tax, trade
and health-care issues as a partner in the Washington lobbying firm
Capitol Counsel, contributed $70,500 to lawmakers, political action
committees and party committees during the first six months of 2009,
Federal Election Commission records show. McCrery is not a lobbyist,
but said he intends to register in January.

People in lobbying firms "are expected to give campaign contributions," said McCrery, a Louisiana Republican.

Having leftover campaign funds to donate, he
said, "gives you a leg up to the extent that you don't have to take it
out of your own income."

Recipients of McCrery's campaign money include Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley and Michigan Rep. Dave Camp,
the top Republicans on the panels that oversee tax policy and health
care. McCrery said his chief goal was to help other Republicans.

Former Democratic representative Bud Cramer,
chairman of the lobbying firm Wexler & Walker, donated $75,000 in
leftover funds to federal candidates this year, including $2,000 to a
Republican — Sen. Richard Shelby of his home state Alabama. Shelby is the ranking member of the Senate banking committee, and the firm's clients include American Express
and the Consumer Credit Industry Association, according to its website.
Cramer, who left office this year, did not return calls. He is not a
registered lobbyist.

Others who left office years ago continue to use campaign funds to spread the wealth. Former Colorado congresswoman Patricia Schroeder,
who retired after the 1996 election, gave nearly $225,000 to candidates
during a decade of lobbying — including $4,000 to fellow Democrats this
year before retiring as CEO of the Association of American Publishers.

The donations were not about buying influence
but a chance to "go to fundraisers and say hello to friends," she said.
"We kicked it out at $500 and $1,000 at a time," Schroeder said of her
contributions over the years. "That won't get you very far in the
lobbying world."

Funds donated

How much some ex-lawmakers have contributed from their campaign or political action committees:

Barack Obama: the politics of hypocrisy and cynicism It was supposed to be all about the end of politics as
usual. But while President Barack Obama has been happy to bring about
change while abroad by doing all he can to diminish the superpower
status of the United States

Just
in time for the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of
Species," a team of Christian scientists has traveled back in time to
the birthplace of evolution to "prove Darwin wrong."

The scientists have embarked on a journey to the Galapagos
Islands, the same island chain Darwin visited during the voyage of the
HMS Beagle in 1835. Many scholars today agree that the animals and plants Darwin saw on those islands contributed greatly to his becoming an evolutionist.

Convinced that different species had evolved from common
ancestors, Darwin began forming his theory of evolution within two
years of the ship's return to England in 1836. His 1859 book "On the
Origin of Species" became the impetus for persuading many members of
the scientific community

Their mission:
Determine whether the Galapagos Islands, resting above vast tectonic
plates, are a laboratory for evolution as Darwin believed – or a truly
magnificent showcase of God's creation.

Charles Darwin goes to the Galapagos Islands

Doug Phillips,
executive producer of the film, explained that prior to leaving on the
HMS Beagle with Capt. Robert FitzRoy, Darwin had served as a student at
seminary where he was studying to be a clergyman. Though he had no
formal training in naturalism, Darwin took on the position of a
naturalist on the five-year journey that would take him around the
world and culminate in a visit to the Galapagos Archipelago. MORE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

November 22, 2009

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A Florida jury on Thursday ordered cigarette
maker Philip Morris USA to pay $300 million in damages to a 61-year-old
ex-smoker named Cindy Naugle who is wheelchair-bound by emphysema.

The Broward Circuit Court jury assessed $56.6 million in past and
future medical expenses against the company, part of Altria Group Inc,
as well as $244 million in punitive damages.

The verdict is the largest of the so-called Engle progeny cases that have been tried so far, both sides said.

Philip Morris will seek further review of the verdict because of
"numerous erroneous rulings by the trial judge," Philip Morris
spokesman Murray Garnick said in a statement.

"We believe that the punitive damages award is grossly excessive and
a clear violation of constitutional and state law," Garnick said.

Naugle's lawsuit was among about 8,000 cases filed in the wake of a
2006 Florida Supreme Court decision that tossed out a massive class
action against the tobacco companies. The case, known as Engle v. RJ
Reynolds, resulted in the largest verdict in U.S. history at trial --
$145 billion.

The Florida high court ruling, which decertified the class of about 700,000 smokers, allowed some to file individual complaints.

November 19, 2009

A drug that failed to fight the blues could be the female answer to the little blue pill Viagra, the lead North American investigator analysing tests of the drug said Tuesday.

Women who took the drug flibanserin when it was being tested as an
anti-depressant said it didn't help them beat the glums, but did give
them "an increase in libido that they liked," John Thorp, one of the investigators analyzing data from three clinical trials of the drug, told AFP.

Lack of desire is the most common sexual problem in women aged 30 to
60, just as erectile dysfunction, for which Viagra is one of a choice
of treatments, is the most common sexual disorder among men in the same
age bracket, Thorp said. MORE>>>>>>>>>>>>>